Legal advice please – cancelling a new car dispute

As long as it’s just forenames – I don’t think surnames have been mentioned on here (even if it’s not hard to find it out…)

sr0093193 – Member
So you wouldn’t have a problem if someone was taking out finance on a car their partner would drive?

That’s a hard answer. Husband/wife or gay equivalent = no issue at all. As long as the person signing was fully aware. That’s allowed, a “family” car.

More casual relationships are more difficult, due to liabilities. But you certainly shouldn’t lie, to get a car.

Not really relevant at all at that stage then as you hadn’t got anywhere near the finance stuff. It’s not you providing the finance directly either, so it’s not really relevant to you at all provided they don’t lie on the finance forms.

It’s a shame Poopscoop isn’t interested in this thread. I’m sure he could have made some fascinating contributions.

But there isn’t a difference in liabilities.

Employed ‘Husband’ earning 100k a year with good credit rating.
‘Housewife’ who is unemployed and cannot get finance.
‘Husband’ takes out the finance deal and accepts all liabilities.
If anything goes wrong you pursue ‘Husband’ in court for costs.

Employed ‘Friend #1’ earning 100k a year with good credit rating.
‘Friend #2’ who is unemployed and cannot get finance.
‘Friend #1’ takes out the finance deal and accepts all liabilities.
If anything goes wrong you pursue ‘Friend #1’ in court for costs.

The person signing the contract takes on all the responsibility. Whoever drives it is irrelevant as long as they are correctly insured.

It’s stupid of Friend #1, and you may not ‘like’ it, but there is nothing wrong with it.

I don’t think I’ll finance my next car with Ling

Oh I don’t know, old chap, I’d still buy a car through Ling after all this. It’s Geordie Mick in ‘sales’ I probably wouldn’t buy anything from; with his ethical ‘problems’.

Is he even a Geordie? Is he even called Mick?

This is my issue too. Stripping out the legal “can he/can’t he”, this is clearly someone who has form for dicking people about without a care in the world for the impact it has on them, and is in financial shit (see other threads he’s started) yet still makes irresponsible decisions then backs out using clauses.

Is that someone I would buy off or sell to? **** no.

Does Ling take a tough stance that some would argue is harsh? Undoubtedly, but at least she’s honest and upfront about it.

My my. What a lot of whataboutery.

Whether Mick or Steve were misinterpreted, were unclear about their intentions or outright lied is an irrelevance. Any inferred ‘moral’ obligation on the part of the buyer is an irrelevance. Any separation of “finance” vs “buying a car” is an irrelevance. The fact that a car is big and shiny is an irrelevance. What does any of that lot have to do with his (or moreover, Steve’s) statutory rights? What matters here is contract law.

Assuming that it was actually signed, Ling and Steve have a contract. Under CCR (note to half the posters here, “Distance Selling Regulations” doesn’t exist), Steve is entitled to cancel that contract without penalty within 14 days. Any financial outlay made by the seller in the interim is their own silly fault for jumping the gun during the legal cooling-off period.

If shoving a GBP500+ fine onto a cancelled contract is anything other than illegal I’d love to know what I’ve overlooked.

scotroutes – Member
It’s a shame Poopscoop isn’t interested in this thread. I’m sure he could have made some fascinating contributions.

Selective reading my friend, you’ve learnt bad habits from Ling.

I had no interest in the documents Ling posted only that she did not breach data protection law as she threatened and stopped using the forum to bully a genuine member with insinuations and threats.

I don’t like bullies in any form. Being loud and abrasive doesn’t make her right. The views she has gone onto express about immigrants and cyclists have just cemented my views further.

As I said on page god knows, the transcripts posted don’t seem to concretely suggest the arrangement Mick describes. As in all the facts, that he would be driving the car, were laid out beforehand.

Not falling on any side, as there are no winners here, just an observation.

Oh, and then there’s threatening to breach the Data Protection Act, of course.

Just so all readers are aware, STW has a policy of not retrospectively deleting posts on demand. Just saying.

Not falling on any side, as there are no winners here

Bollocks, everyone not actually involved in the deal has had a great time!

Thanks Cougar for the transparency.

Bollocks, everyone not actually involved in the deal has had a great time!

People like the OP, you mean?

Bollocks, everyone not actually involved in the deal has had a great time!

Well yes, of course. We’ve all won the lottery in this thread.

The OP comes across as one of those guys who would **** you over and use ‘it’s just business’ as an excuse.

People like the OP, you mean?
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOL

It gives and gives and gives and gives. What a thread.

At the moment I’m betting on ling based on her leasing thousands of cars and him never leasing one before. Therefore more likely she knows the rules best. But at this stage who can honestly say they have a clue what is actually going on?

Rickmeister, I like you work.

Neither the OP or Ling benefit from this dispute.

I wouldn’t like to deal with either in a professional capacity.

my only real worry, is that much like the last week of school holidays you’re having a great time and then it’ll all stop.

I want this thread to go on forever.

To be fair to the OP, she did say..

“I can’t hold the car until the finance is signed for”

That suggests that the car was never taken off the market and she incurred no losses as a result of anything the OP did.
She then attempted to extort £600 out of him.

I’m sure it’ll linger for a while.

I want this thread to go on forever.

Well, if the OP doesn’t get the jobs he’s interviewing for, hell not have a company car, so will still need to buy one, this could all be reignighted soon enough…

Prefer this one.

The person signing the contract takes on all the responsibility. Whoever drives it is irrelevant as long as they are correctly insured.

Perhaps in principle. But when your dealing with real people a close family member would be far more likely to step up and make the payments. A friend is far more likely to need to be forced to make the payments kicking and screaming. Enforcement takes time and money, something finance companies are keen to avoid. So yes the nature of the relationship does matter.

(doesn’t Alison Moyet look good)

But when your dealing with real people a close family member would be far more likely to step up and make the payments. A friend is far more likely to need to be forced to make the payments kicking and screaming.

It’s not really relevant.. If the finance company is satisfied and the deal is completed, then any issues with payments to the finance company are legally between the finance company and the person who signed for the finance.
Of course the person who signed for the finance could persue the ‘friend’ but that’s a different subject.

If it’s my own personal car I can lend it to my mate Mick* and he can insure it and drive it.

*not his real name

That only person that has come out of this looking good is Alison Moyet

All this stuff about the person who is going to drive the car being different to the person applying for finance on the car is just whataboutery anyway, given the car was never delivered (and hasn’t even been built yet). So it’s utterly irrelevant to anything and makes no difference to consumer credit law.

Hmm, imagine if Ling has been making legal threats to this forum because she freely threatened to breach the Data Protection Act by publishing personal information of a forum member ( who has been, as stated above, a genuine member ).

I thought Alison Moyet was dead, but was getting her mixed up with that other singer who got hit in the head by a boat.

aming.

It’s not really relevant.. If the finance company is satisfied and the deal is completed, then any issues with payments to the finance company are legally between the finance company and the person who signed for the finance.

Agreed, but they would be more likely to complete a deal if it were a husband/wife buying a car to be used by their partner, rather than a friend buying for a friend. Assuming they were aware of the situation.

It’s just the volume of lies from the OP that drives me mad here. Every time he posts, we see contradictions and undeclared stuff and frankly, lies.

I accept a brother-in-law can be a best mate, but it’s unlikely you’d use that in this context

“My best mate (SC – the proposer and person who ordered the car) was doing me a favour and ordering me a car as I’ve been out of work for 8 months…”

“So my mate offered to put the car in his name and I’d pay the finance.”

“Me and my mate have both taken legal advice this morning”

Why is it important? Because maybe he knew I would react badly to the “mate’s” car proposal and finance unless I thought it was a family member. Smell more of a rat…

So what is it? Best mate or brother in law? Hmmm. Or is this just another lie to me when the car was applied for?

16 pages, 16 PAGES!! And I still don’t get to find out what a ‘spitty gift’ is 🙁

Just one of you post up the full transcript.

Ling, not worth replying to your posts any more. It’s just the same rant over and over. I will just post this each time:

Ling,
Just take the op and friend to court then.
Your so adamant you will win, even video it. Well, go do it.
Stop posting your incoherent ramblings on here and be pro active rather than using childish taunts and threats in some sad to watch self promotion.

Re all these people suggesting the finance status of the person using the car is “OK” as long as the car is paid for.

It’s not OK.

Finance information to a finance company must be truthful. Dreadful things happen when people lie. It exposes people. Like lying on an insurance application.

The integrity of any system relies on people telling the truth.

If a finance company found out they were lied to, they would probably reject the finance and likely put a marker on a credit file.